*************************************************************************how about I believe in WHATEVER I want – even in the FLYING SPAGHETTIMONSTER! – and you have nothing to say!*******************************************************************************

let me show you the end results of this particular *ONE-DIMENSIONAL SCIENTIFIC MODE*of thinking that is called *CRITICAL THINKING*, which is completely divorced fromany human objectives…

this style has been perfected by dawkins, pz, randi and the other *NEW ATHEISTS***THE BOOBQUAKE – 911!***hey, atheists don't even BELIEVE IN BOOBIES!!!they thought BOOBIES had no effect… WRONG!

see, I just want to make it clear to the rest of you:jen is unable to see that there is a CONFLICT BETWEEN EROS & SCIENCE….

It was only today that I came around to listen to this interview. In have the following comments:

1. I agree that it is possible that future developments in theoretical physics might dispel the impression that the fundamental constants are fine-tuned, but I have two observations: First, the job of physics, it seems to me, is to discover and mathematically model the order present in physical phenomena, and not to answer questions about why this order is such as it is and not otherwise. It would be interesting if there is an order yet to be discovered which would eliminate the apparent arbitrariness of the values of the fundamental constants we need today, but if reality is such that this turns out not to be possible, this fact will not in any way represent a failure of physics. Secondly, if one takes into account the development of physics this far, one notes that theories tend to become more generally applicable and more exact, but also more mathematically complex and also more contingent on the values of fundamental constants. Indeed to my knowledge string theory depends on us specifying an even greater number of constants in order to make the theory fit with observations. So, on this account at least, it is perhaps optimistic to expect future physics to dispel the apparent fine-tuning of the fundamental constants.

2. You say that evolutionary biologists are making progress in explaining moral behavior. That’s true but beside the point. Naturalism’s problem is not to explain moral behavior, but to explain what is it is that makes some behavior moral in the first place.